affirmation of co-operative constitutional adjudication Sample Clauses

affirmation of co-operative constitutional adjudication. Against the recent background of the ECJ underlining the importance of co-operation with national courts,139 it would appear that a series of rulings supports the present contentions on the ECJ’s respect for the specific constitutional identity of the Member States. Xxxxxxxx argues140 that, in the Omega case,141 the ECJ balanced the right to human dignity (under German Constitution Art. 1) with the freedom to provide services when it held that:142 Since both the Community and its Member States are required to respect fundamental rights, the protection of those rights is a legitimate interest which, in principle, justifies a restriction of the obligations imposed by Community law, even under a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty such as the freedom to provide services Further in Laval,143 the ECJ made an express reference to the importance of the right to collective action enshrined in Art. 17 of the Swedish Constitution and pointed out144 that exercising the right to take 138 Xxxxxxxxx (2002), at 358. 139 See Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v. Council [2002] ECR I-6677, at para. 42; Case C-355/04 P Segi v. Council [2007] ECR I-1657, at para. 38; and Case C-432/05 Unibet (London) Ltd. v. Justitiekanslern [2007] ECR I-2271, at para. 38: “[u]nder the principle of cooperation laid down in Article 10 EC, it is for the Member States to ensure judicial protection of an individual’s rights under Community law.” 140 Groussot (2008), at 21. 141 Case C-36/02 Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v. Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn [2004] ECR I-9609. 142 Ibid., at para. 35. 143 Case C-341/05 Laval un Partneri Ltd. v. Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet [2007] ECR I-11767, at para. 92. 144 Ibid., at para. 103. In support of this proposition, the ECJ referred to Joined Cases C-369/96 and C-376/96 Criminal proceedings against Arblade [1999] ECR I-8453, at para. 36; Case C-165/98 Mazzoleni and Inter Surveillance Assistance SARL [2001] ECR I-2189, at para. 27; Joined Cases C-49/98, C-50/98, C-52/98 to C-54/98 and C-68/98 to C-71/98 Finalarte v. Urlaubs- und Lohnausgleichskasse der Bauwirtschaft [2001] ECR I-7831, at para. 33; and Case C-438/05 International Transport Workers’ Federation v. Viking Line ABP [2007] ECR I-10779, at para. 77. collective action “for the protection of the workers of the host State against possible social dumping may constitute an overriding reason of public interest within the meaning of the case-law of th...